A cult (not to be confused with occult) is any religious or political group too small to have its own army and navy or without political power. When used as a pejorative or snarl word, it can mean "a new religion, that isn't mine, which I don't like." In popular culture, the term is generally applied to religions that are controlling and extreme.

The media narrative is that cults are scary groups where lost children go to be raped and murdered, where the recruits wander through airports chanting various 'ohms', and of course, where people are (ooga booga) brainwashed.

A bit more formally, the term is usually used to refer to religions (or other movements) whose beliefs or practices are heterodox and regarded by the larger population as bizarre. In the academic discipline of religious studies, recently developed religions have been called "new religious movements," or "NRMs," as a scholarly attempt to avoid the pejorative connotations of "cult."

The term "cult" gained currency — and deeper pejorative connotations — during the 1960s and 1970s due to the criminal activities of groups like the Manson Family. Outsiders considered that various NRMs exercised a coercive control over members' lives; on the other hand, such NRMs proved especially attractive to young people in search of meaning. Adherents often segregated themselves from society, including from prior friends and family, and adopted non-mainstream lifestyles. Recruitment tactics like love bombing and offering an environment of stability via identification with, and dedication to, the group aroused alarm in non-adherents.

Anti-cult hysteria during the 1970s and since has had an air of moral panic. In at least one case — the Branch Davidians — this unreasonable fear led to preemptive law-enforcement actions far out of proportion to any danger the group actually posed, if any, and ended in disaster. Moreover, the Satanic Panic mania of the 1980s and 1990s infected law enforcement and prosecutors, leading to wrongful convictions of many for supposed ritual abuse of children, events which in all likelihood never occurred.

The term "new religious movement" is a euphemism for "cult." They are young and have a novel mix of teachings and practices.

The question what is new is not fixed. One rule of the thumb is that they came into a country after the second world war. New religious movements are very diverse. They tend to be small, unpopular and generally receive little support from society. A notable exception to this is the Sathya Sai Baba movement that is supported by many high-ranking Indian politicians. Japan has some large new religious movements.

Many of them were founded by living charismatic leaders, in the sense used by Max Weber. Living charismatic leaders tend to be unpredictable.

One important practical question is how to deal with a family member or friend who joins a movement. The degree of involvement may vary greatly for each individual: not all new religious movements demand strong commitment.

Individual problems with a movement may only appear on leaving for a committed adherent, especially when the adherent lives in an intentional community.

Some countries, like France and Belgium, have special laws against new religious movements. The UK has a government-sponsored public education institute, called Inform. Other countries like the USA and the Netherlands have no special laws or institutes at all.

New religious movements may become less radical and less demanding over time. For example, in ISKON/Hare Krishna, not so much pressure is put on converts to live in an intentional community anymore.

With that said, there are several warning signs that can be used to indicate when a religious group has gone from "harmless, quirky woo-meisters" to an active threat to its membership and even to others.[1]

Rick Ross's Cult Education Institute lists the following warning signs for followers of a cult:[2]

They are extremely obsessive regarding the group/leader, resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.

Individual identity, the group, the leader, and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused – as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.

They engage in uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, effectively cloning the group/leader in their personal behavior.

They are dependent upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.

They have a hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supersede any personal goals or individual interests.

They lose their spontaneity and sense of humor in dramatic fashion.

They are increasingly isolated from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.

They can justify anything the group/leader does no matter how harsh or harmful.

Former followers are at best considered negative, and at worst, they are considered evil and/or under bad influences. They can not be trusted, and personal contact is avoided.

Isaac Bonewits, a neo-pagan writer and magician, proposed the following 'Cult Danger Evaluation Scale' in the 1970s:

Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.

External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior.

Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s): amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed.

Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members: amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts.

Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).

Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.

Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).

Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain.[3]

Juche, the national "religion" of North Korea. Among other things, Juche features the worship of the father Kim Il Sung, the son Kim Jong Il, and the grandson Kim Jong-un, adding a strong religious component to the officially purely political and atheist ideology

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's 1956 secret speech "On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences" was the outing of the late Joseph Stalin as being a cult figure. The unfortunate Mao Zedong was to suffer a similar fate a few decades later.[7]